Owen Patterson and sleaze- a shameful day in the House

Urmstongran

^It may be that there needs a change in procedure^. I think that’s what I’m after growstuff.

as said above- then it has to be done properly, following proper x part discussions and legal advice, etc.

25Avalon

PippaZ

Just as a matter of interest Avalon what is it you think was spelt wrongly?

You accused me indirectly of being contemptable.

I thought there was a general understanding on Gnet that criticising people's spelling is unacceptable?

* sorry - it was PippaZ

Urmstongran

No, Kali2 it’s all relevant. Same committee! Needs looking at. Maybe rejigging. Cross-party or better still Rejoiners & Brexiteers mix! It has been noted that all ‘Remainers’ (Labour & Tory) are not found guilty. Paterson? Well, he voted to Leave didn’t he?

Fine, they can look at it and 'rejig' it if and when the open discussion has taken place- not as a reaction to 'save a mate'.

Petera

So do the people defending Johnson on this thread now think his U-turn is wrong? Or do you want to defend his U-turn?

I don't think that anyone is defending Johnson. Ug is trying some diversionary whataboutery, that's all.

I wonder if she's managed to read the report of the Select Committee on Standards.? I did post the link for her last night. It's better reading than Guido Fawkes and his ilk...

I really am at a loss to understand why there are posters still defending this corrupt government . Thank goodness for those Tory MP's who had the courage to defy the whip.
Jill Mortimer said"This was a colossal misjudgement; it should not have been whipped. You should have been allowed to vote with your conscience." I do agree with her.

It may be that there needs a change in procedure. I think that’s what I’m after growstuff.

PippaZ

Just as a matter of interest Avalon what is it you think was spelt wrongly?

You accused me indirectly of being contemptable.

Incidentally, the matter was referred to the police, who gave Doughty a caution.

Just as a matter of interest Avalon what is it you think was spelt wrongly?

Urmstongran

He requested the drugs off a constituent he was helping over a housing matter. The constituent thought giving him the drugs might ensure his MP fought for him a bit harder.

Owning such a drug without prescription carries a possible two year jail sentence.

It's nothing to do with politics if you ask one of your constituents to obtain a drug for you?!

Doughty had known the man for six years and there was proof he asked for and was given diazepam once. He was normally prescribed diazepam, but had run out and wanted some because he was about to make a flight, which made him anxious. You are libelling Doughty, who has apologised for his mistake.

25Avalon

Bad spelling Pippa Z. I find it contemptible that posters resort to derogatory insulting language.

You have no idea what I go through not to have weird spellings Avalon and I don't need your comments on them (nor does anyone else on this forum). Very bad manner to add to everything else. Suffice it to say that I do my best to make sure they are at least readable.

So first, you chuck in a poor man who died recently. Then you attack me personally. Just argue your point if you have one; people will accept that.

The problem is that you don't have a "point" when it comes to this Conservative government's behaviour.

So do the people defending Johnson on this thread now think his U-turn is wrong? Or do you want to defend his U-turn?

Urmstongran

The Standards Commissioner stated that Stephen Doughty (Labour, voted Remain) did not break the code when he asked a vulnerable constituent to procure class C drugs for him.

No Ms Stone he broke the law!

Why no sanctions?

Why are you still discussing the details of these cases? You really don't get it, do you?

It may be that there needs a change in procedure - we could have a new thread about what changes would be best and why. We could also have a separate thread about the findings re Owen Patterson.

What parliament cannot do is conflate the two. One is under the current procedure agreed by parliament and used for several decades, the other is a discussion about future changes.

Thank you dickens for your posts.

No, Kali2 it’s all relevant. Same committee! Needs looking at. Maybe rejigging. Cross-party or better still Rejoiners & Brexiteers mix! It has been noted that all ‘Remainers’ (Labour & Tory) are not found guilty. Paterson? Well, he voted to Leave didn’t he?

Bad spelling Pippa Z. I find it contemptible that posters resort to derogatory insulting language.

He requested the drugs off a constituent he was helping over a housing matter. The constituent thought giving him the drugs might ensure his MP fought for him a bit harder.

Owning such a drug without prescription carries a possible two year jail sentence.

It's nothing to do with politics if you ask one of your constituents to obtain a drug for you?!

25Avalon

So David Ames’s was a bad or immoral person? I think not. So much outpouring of hate.

David Amess was not voting yesterday for obvious reasons.

I think pulling his name into this discussion is a low blow and looks very much like someone trying to shock and sensationalise. I am sure you did this to divert the thread away from what you consider a damaging topic against which you have no actual argument.

I would think the word "contemptable" covers that sort of post.

You sound like Johnson, just turning anything into an attack in another direction. This thread is a about Owen Patterson, sleaze and the vote in the House. Start another thread if you want to discuss another issue.

It's not the Standards Commissioner's role to impose sanctions.

Where did you drag that up from?

The Standards Commissioner stated that Stephen Doughty (Labour, voted Remain) did not break the code when he asked a vulnerable constituent to procure class C drugs for him.

No Ms Stone he broke the law!

Why no sanctions?

There will be a new vote with no party whip as to whether Patterson should be suspended. I take your point PippaZ that there are two issues.

Urmstongran

I see the point missing has begun on this thread. Whether Patterson is "guilty" or not is not the point. The key question is is the process both fair and fairly applied. It clearly is not.

If any of us were subject to a judge and jury approach by a single individual, with no right of reply and no account being taken of our evidence we would be incensed and rightly so.

All the people complaining about "this" government seem happy that members of "our " opposition seem to be held by differing standards.

You, I believe, are still missing the point Urmstongran. That is that there are two separate issues that should not have been combined as if they were one.

One is whether Parliament should confirm Owen Paterson's six-week suspension recommended by Parliament’s standards committee after they found that he had breached lobbying rules on behalf of two companies, which between them were paying him more than £100,000 a year. MPs can vote for or against that and have more information in forming that view than most voters have to hand.

The second issue is whether Parliament should convene a new select committee to set up an independent appeals body.

By relating the pros and cons of that current system, used for decades, to Owen Patterson's case, you have done what the government tried to do. However, I have a feeling you cannot see it.

Angela Richardson has been reinstated as well.